I often find myself in a position where I realize that taking my own life would be very easy. Suppose I am about to cross the street, or am rock climbing; how simple and quick it would be to take one step, just one step, in front of a car or off a cliff. In all likelihood I wouldn't even feel any pain. In this way there seem many scenarios wherein the effective "barrier" to suicide seems practically nonexistent. I must stress: my contemplation of suicide in such instances has nothing to do with depression or even emotion, nor do I mean to make light of those who suffer from such grief; rather, I find the extreme ease with which I may conceptually commit catastrophic acts somewhat counter-intuitive. After all, what is there, really, to dissuade me? Suppose that I am an atheist. what rationale exists that might prevent me from killing myself? For one who is certain (1) that there exists no afterlife, and, further, (2) that there is no consciousness after death (i.e., I won't "miss" anything of life or even be aware thereof) what is the conceivable "cost" of suicide? Certainly the idea of a painful death may serve as a inhibition to taking one's own life. It is easy, however, to imagine scenarios such as the aforementioned wherein suicide would be literally instantaneous and painless. A biological drive to self-preservation may also have force, but this is arguably irrelevant insofar as I have framed this discussion purely within the bounds of reason. It's finals week. I'm stressed out of my mind. Why not jump out in front of a incoming truck on route 9? At least I wouldn't have to do any more school work. Besides, what exactly would I lose? -andy c. nguyen

Is it actually ethical for medical science to try to develop cures for all diseases? Isn't disease helping to keep our population in check? If our population grows too much and depletes our resources, wouldn't wars over resources be the greater harm incurred?

I really love my wife and of course I never want to hurt her, but is it moral to cheat on her if I'm 100% sure that she won't know (and therefore she won't be hurt)?

Rape is unwanted sex. Why playing in sexy films or sexy scenes as a professional obligation (i.e., being obliged to have sex with another actor/actress who is NOT necessarily beloved already) is not considered as rape? I mean, being raped by the director or producer, not by the other actor/actress who is him/herself the other victim of this rape? And why this job is considered different from prostitution? What's the position of Human Rights in these regards?

Might it be true that certain practices of ethical philosophers are in some sense unethical? E.g., might it not be in bad taste (i.e., betray a bad character) to ask “Why shouldn’t I exploit my friends?” or “What’s so bad about pedophilia?”? This might apply more to an Aristotelian ethics, but in any case, it does seem to reflect certain attitudes in everyday modern life. E.g., we seem to place a higher ethical value on a person who is simply naturally good and doesn’t know or care about any reasons for being good (the picture of innocence).

I was hoping you could help me with something personal. My general question is, is there any philosophically rigorous defense for being lazy? Here are the specifics: I'm 20. My parents started me playing cello since I was 4: weekend music school, recitals, the whole bit. And I enjoyed it while I did it, and got good at it. Now I'd like to stop. Naturally, my parents are up in arms: "you can't stop." "why not?" "because 1) you've invested so much time. 2) you owe it to yourself to continue. 3) it's part of who you are, you like it, and it's in your best interest to continue. You shouldn't abandon a rewarding activity just because you're lazy. 4) you have the potential to bring others joy through your music". How do I respond to these claims? I feel like the ideas behind the claims traffic in philosophy, that there are equally philosophically defensible rebuttals, and that I don't know them. As another piece of information, and I think this applies to a lot of young people caught in this situation, I'll borrow a fact that I believe from psychology. Psychology teaches us that a lot of the reasons for our actions are unconscious - we know we have needs, but we can't articulate them. But it obviously won't do to say to a zealous parent: "I know I don't want this, but I can't explain it. It's unconscious". Any help for me here? Thanks from Minnesota... -Jordan

I've really enjoyed reading the answers to the questions posed on this site and I've come up with a question that was inspired from an experience my 5 year old daughter recently had. My question is this: Why is it wrong to snitch on a friend? I can see in cases of minor mischief that snitching on a friend would seem to be unloyal but just how far should our duty to our friendship extend? I'm asking this from the context where you know your friend has done something wrong and in which you were not involved but your friend has requested you remain silent on their behalf.

Let's say John hears from others that he seems perfect for some job/field, or a natural at that job/field. "You really ought to do this or that." Further, John is aware that he is very skilled at that activity, and would be a natural at it (in other words, it's not just mom's wishful thinking that her son should be a doctor). However, John has no interest in pursuing this field, and would rather do something else. Does he owe it to the world at large to follow the unwanted path and do great things for humanity?

Hello, I was reading the answer to question 726, where Jay L. Garfield discusses Andrea Dworkin's argument about whether a woman can consent to a man's sexual advances: "The person most associated with this claim was Andrea Dworkin, though she was not alone in asserting it. The claim was a bit hyperbolic, but reflected an interesting, controversial claim. Consent, she argued, presupposes rough equality. If you are a violent person holding a gun, and ask me politely for all of my money, even if you don't threaten me, my handing it over is nonconsensual. And that is the case, on this view, even if, had you not had the gun, I would have consented, out of generosity, to give you the cash you wanted. The presence of an unequal power relationship, and the background of potential violence renders consent conceptually impossible." That may be so, but consider that I am on very friendly terms with the violent person holding a gun - that is, I have a good history with her or him and that I know he or she won't be violent if I don't comply. Wouldn't consensus be conceptually possible in this scenario? By Dworkin's reasoning, we may say that children can never consent to their parents' suggestions about their lives, since children and parents differ widely in power and knowledge. However, this seems counterintuitive, for we usually don't view parents as oppressing their children. I guess, then, my question is, doesn't Dworkin's argument horribly simplify the relationship between men and women? I agree that women are subordinated, oppressed and seen as "the second sex" in most walks of life but Dworkin's argument is a biased, faulty machinery that crudely produces conclusions she likes. Best...

I am a police officer and I have a dilemma. Everyday I see people destroyed from the effects of alcohol abuse. I have seen innocent people killed by people under the influence of alcohol. In some instances it was two drunks arguing and one killed another or once a drunk husband shot and killed his wife in front of their children. Then there are the drunk drivers who indiscriminately kill I’ve seen several of those. Now I can say that I have definitely never seen someone killed by another person under the influence of marihuana. I have never seen anyone killed by a driver under the influence of marihuana. I have never seen a person die because they smoked themselves to death, but I have seen quite a few people drink themselves to death. Then I look at the potential medical value of marihuana and when I combine all these things I am beginning to feel that morally I am falling off of a cliff. One-day history may judge me to be a 21st century Nazi. If I deliberately do not make arrests for violations of Controlled Dangerous Substance Laws I feel I am violating the ethics of my profession. The other side is I feel the law itself is morally wrong.